Too much garbage to quote, but what are neo-nazis doing that is so offensive really. They aren't even identifying with the term you pinkos have ascribed them to btw, I just use it for your sake of understanding.

Not sure where that quote comes from, but the Constitution simply says "freedom of speech" that's it. It's broad on purpose, to limit government regulation as much as possible. If government is making regulations against speech, it is acting against the Constitution. Period.

Click to expand...

The constitution gives you the right to pursue happiness, which a nazi rally is actively campaigning against for a large group of people.

You seem to want to minimise it by just saying it's a bit of name calling and you can call back, but these are people who are trying to mobilise support against all non whites. If you keep protecting their right to spread hate, then hate is what you'll get. It is impossible that it will ever turn into reasoned debate.

For the same reason you have an army and don't just send people out on holiday to fight wars. You have to be mentally ill to be a klan member and there is no telling what they would do. They should be stopped by government, not civilians. At least the klan members are white, so if the police turned up to stop them then they wouldn't shoot first and ask questions later.

The constitution gives you the right to pursue happiness, which a nazi rally is actively campaigning against for a large group of people.

Click to expand...

Maybe, however you then have to try to draw a line and that gets insanely hard to do. To that end as reprehensible and abhorrent as their ideas may be, and worse still to my sensibilities lacking any real foundation in logic, until they cross the line of specific directions or incitement such that someone is likely to get hurt as a direct consequence (the classic example being something like if they were screaming for the killing of all purple eyed people and directed them to do that where they were at -- they may not know have known the name or even that one was around but as a direct and foreseeable consequence...).
To that end if you want to note who they are, not be friends with them, not employ them, not use their services, deny them non essential services you might run... OK then, more power to you in fact.
To deny them the right to speak though... the world has to be big enough and ugly enough to take care of itself.
You appear to be somewhat worried about it being contagious, and maybe it is, however underground it can still thrive. I will also bring up the Superman radio drama -- it had all sorts of real code words and whatever else fed to it by an infiltrator, broadcast out... membership and support fell dramatically once people were aware of the batshit insane ideas they were spouting. Prior to that they were also routinely investigated by law enforcement and not exactly allowed free reign.

Spin it another way. Religions of various stripes, caused no small amount of strife both individual and group wise throughout history, their codified rules in books they purport to follow contain some egregious shit. Big protest saying we need more religion. What do you do? It could be functionally the same thing. Worse is you know it will be one of those slippery slope things; what government in history has really ever surrendered powers (particularly ones that juicy) or not feature crept them? Go another. All those people protesting the police. Someone (or better yet a nice false flag) sees a policeman get popped. If you have that you now have those essential to law and order (not even just citizens) being killed and your protest criminalised, or at least... seriously legally dissuaded, as a result.

The though of surrendering some free speech to combat them... just no. I don't know if in this instance it means they have won but someone has and it ain't me.

Maybe, however you then have to try to draw a line and that gets insanely hard to do.

Click to expand...

That is true for many laws, which is why it takes so long to draft them and then you have courts which interpret them for what is reasonable.

A limit to the size of a group, whether it's said in the moment or premeditated, whether it's parody etc are all things that can be considered. If you're member of a group that says that it's premeditated, then you've instantly incriminated yourself. If they want to rebrand as an equal opportunities social reform group, then that would be an improvement. You can't stop people being racist, it's an inherent human behaviour. You can only make it less acceptable to act on it.

But you have to want to do it. What it points to is that there are a lot of people who agree with the klan, but don't want the damage to their reputation that they would get by publicly saying it. You just need a way to force the klan members to do the same, but without a legal basis there isn't really any way.

That is true for many laws, which is why it takes so long to draft them and then you have courts which interpret them for what is reasonable.

A limit to the size of a group, whether it's said in the moment or premeditated, whether it's parody etc are all things that can be considered. If you're member of a group that says that it's premeditated, then you've instantly incriminated yourself. If they want to rebrand as an equal opportunities social reform group, then that would be an improvement. You can't stop people being racist, it's an inherent human behaviour. You can only make it less acceptable to act on it.

But you have to want to do it. What it points to is that there are a lot of people who agree with the klan, but don't want the damage to their reputation that they would get by publicly saying it. You just need a way to force the klan members to do the same, but without a legal basis there isn't really any way.

Click to expand...

There are already plenty of laws, sentencing guidelines and modifiers to things covering everything from denying services to violence. Plenty adequate from where I sit, certainly nothing I am inclined to surrender some rights to speech for or complicate existing ones when there are already fairly simple tried and tested lines.

There are already plenty of laws, sentencing guidelines and modifiers to things covering everything from denying services to violence. Plenty adequate from where I sit, certainly nothing I am inclined to surrender some rights to speech for or complicate existing ones when there are already fairly simple tried and tested lines.

Click to expand...

These are people who are campaigning to have those laws changed and tolerating them is making that more likely to happen.

The existing laws don't cut it, if you don't do something then Trump is just the beginning.

I mean they are shitty people but who cares. You basically want laws in place to ban speech that you don't like.

Click to expand...

All laws are put in place to stop behaviour that people don't like, that isn't an argument against it.

Whether behaviour is made illegal is based on the pros and cons. They obviously think that by organising rallies they can overturn the constitutions guarantee of rights no matter what race you are. Whether you think that is an advantage or disadvantage comes down to whether you're racist or not.

If you think that no matter what they say that their rights should be protected, then you've created a race to the bottom. Appeasement never works.

These are people who are campaigning to have those laws changed and tolerating them is making that more likely to happen.

Click to expand...

Is that not why we have, or are supposed to have, fairly robust sets of foundational laws and aspects of law making to prevent the egregious stuff in the event of public opinion (or public opinion within an area) departing from those such that laws could go through? Even leaving aside them being a minor fringe element with no real chance of numbers on their side to pull such a thing off I don't see that happening by virtue of those foundational things.

I am more worried about things going the other way and us getting laws enforcing quotas for increasingly convoluted and fuzzy lines of division, ones I was always taught were things that did not matter and remains a sentiment I fully agree with, rather than doing the whole meritocracy bit. Indeed such things are already happening https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...en-board-directors-companies-law-jerry-brown-

In what way? Things are pretty sweet out there these days if you go by historical standards.

I am still also failing to see the harms being done that warrant my having to give up something of a fundamental right, one which has served the world exceptionally well since its advent and adoption. So some oxygen thieves with some strange ideas about how the world should work wandered around and shouted a bit, before going home. Some bellend that was variously associated with them killed some people for reasons that could not be justified, nor be called a directed attack, and has been striped up for it. I would say the system works.

If you think that no matter what they say that their rights should be protected, then you've created a race to the bottom. Appeasement never works.

Click to expand...

I can't speak for the one you quoted, though I suspect I have company, but I am happy with the status quo. Say whatever you like until it counts as an incitement, fraud, perjury, directed attack, libel/slander, infringement of intellectual property or the "fire in a crowded theatre" thing, at which point prepare to be slapped. Some of those, looking mainly at intellectual property as far as matters US go, could use a bit of a tune up and clarification but that is a different discussion. I see no need to add any isms to that, even more so given their rather fluid/variable definitions these days, and indeed every reason not to.

Is that not why we have, or are supposed to have, fairly robust sets of foundational laws and aspects of law making to prevent the egregious stuff in the event of public opinion (or public opinion within an area) departing from those such that laws could go through?

Click to expand...

Those underpinnings aren't magic, they are only there because a relatively small group of people keep them there. Replace those people (like Trump is doing) and things can change.

By normalising white supremacy by tolerating it (and by the president saying they are "good people"), you run the risk that enough people will stop overriding their racist tendencies that removing the underpinnings are also tolerated. It will be sold as a way that is seen as a benefit to the voters.

I am more worried about things going the other way and us getting laws enforcing quotas for increasingly convoluted and fuzzy lines of division, ones I was always taught were things that did not matter and remains a sentiment I fully agree with, rather than doing the whole meritocracy bit.

Click to expand...

Sure & you should be worried that it's implemented correctly & if it can't be implemented correctly then that should open further debate.

The reason why things normally go wrong is because they only get passed when nobody noticed the implications, this is because if they were debated openly and honestly then people would panic & shut it down. If the people with a vested interest in blocking a good law always block them, then the people trying to pass good laws will make bad laws. The voters don't have enough insight to notice this

Those underpinnings aren't magic, they are only there because a relatively small group of people keep them there.

By normalising white supremacy by tolerating it (and by the president saying they are "good people"), you run the risk that enough people will stop overriding their racist tendencies that the underpinnings are removed.

Look how "good people" tolerated segregation.

Not many people thought Trump would get elected either, being complacent has just as many dangers as being over restrictive.

Sure & you should be worried that it's implemented correctly & if it can't be implemented correctly then that should open further debate.

The reason why things normally go wrong is because they only get passed because nobody noticed the implications, this is because if they were debated openly and honestly then people would panic & shut it down. If the people with a vested interest in blocking a good law always block them, then the people trying to pass good laws will make bad laws. The voters don't have enough insight to notice this

Click to expand...

Until they look like they are going away or not being enforced I am OK.

If you reckon they are so very dangerous then by all means do something about it. I can't see a reason to be any more worried about them than I am about an ant nest three countries (and a sea) away. Anybody that really lends their ideas that much credence has far bigger problems that can be sorted other ways -- such groups attempt to offer belonging, meaning and purpose, very alluring concepts to most people and for many of their typical recruits quite hard to come by. Find a way to provide that and deprogram/rehabilitate those that were already caught up in things (. Far more effective in the long run, far easier to manage (if it is not the racists then criminal enterprises proper, or maybe just gangs, tend to step in and they require a whole other set of laws*) and no need to step on any free speech in the process.

Does that speak to reality or the models of it "most" people were using? The former almost by definition can't be flawed.

I would go with another approach. There are laws everybody agrees will be the stuff for hundreds of years/until a fundamental shift in society. There are laws that will do for now. There are laws that need to be made in reaction to big changes. There are laws that are kneejerk reactions, kneecapped by various interests, or fail to encompass things. The job of the legal and political system is to sort them out.

*to say nothing of I am not sure how you are supposed to draw a ring around these people, not trouble those with similar but untroubling views, not drive things underground and make them sexy, not have them immediately do something to classify themselves outside the circle you drew and all the stuff I mentioned before.

Find a way to provide that and deprogram/rehabilitate those that were already caught up in things

Click to expand...

It's kinda hard to justify spending money doing that when what it's "good people" exercising their right to free speech, especially when so many people resent giving money to the government to do good things in the first place.

By the time that happens there will be enough wide spread support that maybe even you will have been brainwashed into thinking it's a good idea.

It's kinda hard to justify spending money doing that when what it's "good people" exercising their right to free speech, especially when so many people resent giving money to the government to do good things in the first place.

Click to expand...

The snarky response would surely be like you into thinking giving up free speech in some capacity is a good plan? I will actually go with that as well. That said I am worried it might happen either so slowly or too quickly (this article 13 lark in Europe for one). I can only try my best, try to improve and hope those that play this game even better do the same.

If the US is doing the whole "can't compete with free enterprise" thing they like to do for reasons I never figured out then make it a charity, indeed there are already plenty for ex gang, ex religion, ex groups like those under discussion. Also if we are to go down the government path it would not be against the current bogeyman but all of them (fat and happy people with a job and a purpose don't typically blow stuff up and kill other people, be it for colour, creed, crime or similar), and able to be done under the, for want of a better term, guise of improving schools, infrastructure, transportation, access to jobs... nothing anybody but the most hardcore of a few different groups would object to if you are able to demonstrate results (as opposed to a wasteful slush fund like so many other things).

If you have an alternative way of dealing with the neo nazis other than tolerating them and letting them gain greater support, then I'd love to hear it.

Click to expand...

They arnt "gaining support" because of those rallys, all those nazis where nazis before the rally, there not missionarys knocking on your door to convert you to naziism.
They are just now more open about there already existing beliefs.
The only thing at risk of creating new nazis is the "diversity above equality and freedom" mentality everyone is pushing.
Even Hillary Clinton acknowledged this with her statement on European migration.
Modern naziism is just a misguided overreaction to a legitimate issue.

Your argument the same bizarre argument that the gays are converting our children by not hiding there gayness.

IMO gaming sites shouldn't mingle with politics... Not on the forum, not anywhere, it only causes unneeded discussions...

Click to expand...

Such discussions have been happening as long I have been here, and as best I can tell as long as the forums have as well.
As long as you attempt to enforce the "bring reasons" part of things then it works out OK.

Sure, it's like if you have cancer. If you don't do anything you'll die of it & if you try to treat it then you could die sooner or later. Nobody knows up front what result you'll get.

If you have an alternative way of dealing with the neo nazis other than tolerating them and letting them gain greater support, then I'd love to hear it.

Click to expand...

Except this is not cancer as much as a minor skin irritation that will mostly fade away if left as is. Start cutting away good things and you will do more damage than you ever might heal.

Solution wise then even ignoring my massive misgivings with your proposed one I already went. Most people in such groups are either brought in by the allure of a group and a place to be, occasionally also having been a victim of "others" (said others often also being broke kids brought in by the allure of a group to have your back and a place to be). Prevent that from happening (decent schools, decent transport, chance of a half decent job, possibly intervention at family level*...) and the rest will pretty much solve itself -- I would probably go so far as to say a 1940's/1950s (or older iterations) version of the racist movements could not really take hold today by virtue of society being the way it is, deny them the few recruits they could still get, keep the social pressure aspects and you are good. Keep it up for a couple of generations and you will be laughing at the notion like you might be laughing at the original luddites today. You will probably want to be doing that anyway for other reasons (the luddites might not have been right then but the rate of automation today is going to lead to some interesting things).

*I don't know for certain (I do for crime and other such things, and would wager serious money here) but I would say no small amount of their main recruitment pool are poor, single parent homes, with just plain poor being a close runner up.

Choice videos, good stuff but the stories behind them are ones I have heard time and time again for gangs and people that went off the rails.

As the Nes Online Game injector wasnt beinng updated , and lack of support for new format
I decided to take things into my hands and release Nes Online Game injector MOD
Wich give the program alot of...

Most North American Nintendo fans will be familiar with the name of Reggie Fils-Aime, the current head of Nintendo of America. It appears that his body is no longer ready, however, as 2019 will be his...